Posted on 07/21/2003 11:25:45 PM PDT by Tamzee
From September to March, the Democratic Party played the classic role of appeasers, seeking every excuse possible not to call Saddam Hussein's bluff or call him to account for his defiance of international agreements. This was no different from the role Neville Chamberlain carved out in the 1930s as Hitler defied one international arms control agreement after another on his march to war. Their appeasement threatened to undermine the international security order, and would have done so if George Bush had buckled to their pressures.
In the 1930s, the Communist left also organized a "peace" movement to protest American, British and French "militarism" and keep the Western powers from arming to stop Hitler. Their agenda was to protect Stalin and to put pressure on the appeasers to rely on negotiation and other failed measures. The Communists' peace organization was called the World Congress Against Imperialist War. Its American version was the Committee for the World Congress Against War (note the ellision of "Imperialist" to make the sell to the fellow travelers easy). It was led by the Susan Sarandons and Susan Sontags of the day -- literary icons like Sherwood Anderson and Theodore Dreiser who were willing tools of Stalin's designs.
As the Iraq war approached, this magazine warned that the neo-communist left was making plans to move to the next stage of "resistance" and sabotage the war effort. The left did, in fact, organize law-breaking demonstrations in downtown business centers that would have made al-Qaeda's work easy (by tying up Homeland Security personnel) if the war had not been brought to a swift and happy conclusion by the forces Bush and Rumsfeld set in motion. Since the left's own war with America is permanent, they have now turned their efforts to undermining the peace and specifically America's efforts to reshape the Middle East and make it a less safe harbor for our terrorist enemies.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has followed suit in its own timid way, shedding the mantle of appeasement to become the party of sabotage. Not a day has gone by since American forces liberated Iraq that Democrats have not attempted to undermine the leadership that brought about the victory. The greatest triumph of American policy since the end of the Cold War has become the unending target of Democratic snipers -- among them all its presidential nominees and its chief congressional spokesmen .
The war cost too much; the rationale for the war was deceptive, the President is liar.
We want congressional investigations to tie up the Administration, distract it from its war tasks, and encourage our enemies.
No act of Democratic perfidy has been more disgraceful than Dick Gephardt's statement in Iowa -- echoed by other Democratic figures -- that the President's credibility was a crucial element of the nation's security and that this President had lied.
It was a disgrace on many counts. It was a lie to say that this President had lied. The famous statement about Niger uranium was in fact a statement about a British intelligence report concerning Niger uranium. The statement about British intelligence was true. The British are still supporting their report. The attacks on the statement are political sabotage of the commander-in-chief. In time of war.
Second, the same Dick Gephardt and the other Democratic hypocrites, without exception, went to the wall to defend Bill Clinton's lies about war and peace, to shield him from any inquiry into his missile strikes in the Sudan and in other countries -- strikes that were unauthorized and where the entire premise of the strikes was proven to be false.What Democrat manifested concern about the national security implications of Clinton's credibility during the Lewinsky mess? Which one of them cooperated with the congressional investigations (conducted in advance of any war) into the massive illegal funding of the Clinton campaign by agents of the Chinese military and intelligence services, or into the lax security policies that resulted in China's theft of our entire nuclear arsenal? The answer is none did. America's national security is the lowest priority on the Democratic Party agenda. In this, Ann Coulter is absolutely right.
For the record, the United States did not go to war with Iraq because Iraq made a uranium deal with Niger or because Iraq did or did not have weapons of mass destruction. It went to war with Iraq to implement UN resolution 1441 -- as authorized by a unanimous vote of the UN Security Council and for the reasons stated by Democratic Senator Bob Graham who is now one of the President's chief and most unprincipled attackers.
This what Graham said on Fox News Sunday (6/23/04): "What we're concerned about with Iraq is its intention and capabilities to develop weapons of mass destruction, and the merger of that capability with terrorist groups, that is the ultimate nightmare scenario."
What the Democratic Party is doing now is sabotaging the war on terror. The securing of Iraq -- which borders two terrorist states (Syria and Iran) -- is absolutely crucial for everything that will follow, including the stabilization of the Middle East and the disarming of Islamic terrorists.
It is a national tragedy that in this hour of national crisis the Democratic Party does not have a single statesman who might follow the example of Tony Blair and stand up to the saboteurs and speak out for a bi-partisan front against those who have sworn to destroy us. That Democrats are not rallying around the President in its efforts to carry on the work of peace is an unforgiveable betrayal.
This is the final destructive legacy of the narcissistic and feckless leadership of Carter, Clinton and Gore. It is they who set the bad example in the first place. And it is they who have never really shed the McGovern delusion that in the final analysis America is the root cause of all the root causes that inspire our enemies to attack us.
©2003 FrontPageMag.com
What would CBS expect Saddam Fedayeen guerrillas to tell them? "Oh, yeah, we're out here doing it for the Big Guy!"
I would think so, but apparently it has become unpopular to ever question a journalist or politician on those grounds... free speech seems to cover ANYTHING they want to do to sabotage our President and therefore the country :-(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.